Cadet hazing

[Dad2-4]

Nothing in the 52-10 or 52-16 suggests that a member cannot report a crime.  Indeed, the regulation specifically addresses "mandatory reporters" and notes that they must report as required by law.  IOW, there is certainly nothing wrong with reporting a criminal CPP violation to both your commander and the local authorities.  But you must report every suspected CPP violation as required by the 52-10.

(underline added by me)
BINGO! You must report to appropriate authority within CAP, but but in some cases you must report to local authority as well.
Having been in public education as well as CAP for 10 years, I would not hesitate to do both if a CDC was acting the way described by the OP. Let them investigate. Pretty sure the local authorities will not sweep it under the carpet without an investigation.

[niferous]

Has what actually happened been explained yet?  I just started scanning after so many messages of vagueness. 

[abdsp51]

Reading makes me question some things. OP states that he was told these events happened from the source.  OP states that a child has nightmares about said events and another has panic attacks.  Have these ailments been diagnosed by the proper professionals?  The squadron CC says they are experiencing Stockholm Syndrome ( and FYI that can go against said captors as well), is he a psychiatrist or a psychologist?  If things and I say if things were as hostile as alleged and this is coming from my count two cadets.  And given one allegation why was it not reported to the local pd?  There is more to this than what is being told.     

[Johnny Yuma]

The CPP protects everyone in CAP, but first and foremost protects the cadets.

I'd like to think so, but nope.

[Johnny Yuma]

Gosh, I'd forgotten what a cheerful, upbeat person you are when it comes to CP.

I love CP, it's the NHQ canned smoke I could do without...

Anyone who's been in the program longer than 3 years who doesn't drink the NHQ, Inc. FlavorAide knows that the Cadet Protection Program is designed to protect NHQ, Inc., its corporate officers (NB, NEC, BOG) and its employees first and foremost from legal action.

Yeah, you keep saying that.  Strong personal opinion noted.  But it is still not true no matter how often you repeat it.

I was there.  I helped write it.  I know what we were thinking.  I see most or all of the complaints and litigation related to CP, including CPP issues.

I daresay the reverse is also true.  You weren't there.  You didn't write it.  You don't know what we were thinking.

But you are certainly entitled to your personal opinion.

Ned, If your assertion is that NHQ's primary focus wasn't financial when they rewrote the BSA's abuse policies to fit CAP then it directly conflicts with 2 ex-corporate officers that I know who were there when they were briefed and discussed it. At the time BSA was losing their shirts in litigation over pedophiles in the scouts and the end goal was to protect CAP, Inc. from the same sort of liability, to the point that elimination of the cadet program entirely was discussed and eventually rejected. Some of the judgements the BSA was getting handed to them were in the millions and just one of those would have likely bankrupted CAP.

If (and I do mean that, IF) there was a pattern of abuse witnessed by the OP to the extent he claims then in most states a crime has been committed.

Although the OP was very vague and mysterious, I don't disagree that in many states a crime could have been committed.  So?

From the first time I took CPPT in the early, early 90's to when I retook it when I came back into the program it was made very clear that the CAP member was NOT to take any complaint of abuse outside of Corporate, period. It was made very plain that if any authorities were to notified CAP,Inc. would do it after their investigation was done.

The question you need to ask yourself is: If I witnessed a crime outside of CAP, would I be reporting it to the law, or would I report it to my Wing Commander? Why then is it then treated differently because all the parties hold a ID card issued to them by a Corporation based out of Alabama?

Umm, what? 

Nothing in the 52-10 or 52-16 suggests that a member cannot report a crime.  Indeed, the regulation specifically addresses "mandatory reporters" and notes that they must report as required by law.  IOW, there is certainly nothing wrong with reporting a criminal CPP violation to both your commander and the local authorities.  But you must report every suspected CPP violation as required by the 52-10.

Ned, that is NOT how it's been instructed in the formal CPPT. In fact the whole mandatory reporters was added under Pineda's reign  because of the flack NHQ got from mandatory reporters, specifically those trolls from TNWG that started that Starrswon group. If they were never forbidden to report abuse to local LEO's from the start then why the change to the regulation a few years back?

Sorry Ned, but I understand that a lawyer's first duty is to protect his client at nearly all costs. CAP, Inc. happens to be one of yours by choice. You can continue to sugarcoat things or question my truthfullness all you want but we know in the end the membership always ends up under the bus if it's in CAP, Inc's interests.

[Ned]

Ned, If your assertion is that NHQ's primary focus wasn't financial when they rewrote the BSA's abuse policies to fit CAP then it directly conflicts with 2 ex-corporate officers that I know who were there when they were briefed and discussed it.

Well, now we know that you are passing along second and third-hand information.  That certainly helps us understand where you are coming from.  You are certainly entitled to your opinion, even if it is based on incorrect information.

And I've always said that protecting cadets and reducing exposure to CAP are simply two sides of the same coin.  If we protect our cadets, then there isn't any serious exposure to litigation because there won't be any.

But when we wrote it, protecting our cadets was indeed our focus.  When the NB voted to enact the regulations and policies it may well be that one or more of the wing commanders felt that reducing exposure was more important than protecting cadets when they cast their vote.  Only the voters can tell you why they voted as they did.  But again, since the same exact policies drafted to protect cadets also reduce corporate exposure, their votes are one of those "tastes great, less filling" debates.

At the time BSA was losing their shirts in litigation over pedophiles in the scouts

True enough.  BSA even proposed forming a self-insurance pool with us to guard against large judgments.

We declined of course.  We spent a lot of time reverse-engineering the primary reasons the Scouts were having such trouble.  A lot of it was things like a whole lot of "one-on-one" counseling between Scouts and Scout leaders and a lot of camping trips were the participants were relatively unsupervised.

In our view, our exposure - even without any changes - was much less because our cadets spent far less time in one-on-one situations with adult leaders and had comparatively fewer bivouacs/camping situations.

But we knew we could do better, so drafted the CPP that included "two-deep" senior requirements for overnight activities and increased education, reporting, and suspension requirements.

It took us a while to develop our own training materials, so we borrowed (with permission) the BSA materials for a couple of years.

From the first time I took CPPT in the early, early 90's to when I retook it when I came back into the program it was made very clear that the CAP member was NOT to take any complaint of abuse outside of Corporate, period. It was made very plain that if any authorities were to notified CAP,Inc. would do it after their investigation was done.

It is a little hard to react to what you remember of what you were taught 20 years ago, but it bears repeating that nothing in our current policy prohibits or discourages members from contacting law enforcement when it is appropriate.  Heck, I've called the cops over a CPP incident.  (But then I am a mandatory reporter.)

Sorry Ned, but I understand that a lawyer's first duty is to protect his client at nearly all costs. CAP, Inc. happens to be one of yours by choice. You can continue to sugarcoat things or question my truthfullness all you want but we know in the end the membership always ends up under the bus if it's in CAP, Inc's interests.

I am not a CAP legal officer nor a corporate officer.  As a BoG member, I do have a duty to protect the corporation (including correcting wrongdoing by CAP members), but that is relatively recent.  But for over 35 years before being elected to the BoG, I served as a CP officer.  Where I have had a duty first and foremost to protect our cadets from harm.

And your assertions - based on second-hand and incorrect information - are simply wrong, selectively self-serving to promote your narrow vision of CAP, and are disrespectful of the volunteers who form the backbone of this organization.

And always easily done "anonymously" on the internet.

[Spaceman3750]

Lt. Col. Lee,

Because the CPP places a large emphasis on observation and reporting by individual members, does this policy open the membership to potential litigation for failing to act in what someone deems to be a "timely" manner? What about if the court rules that a "reasonable person" would have directly intervened instead of just reporting it - does that open individual members to civil liability as well?

I know I'm kind of speaking in hypotheticals here, but it's just something that popped into my head and I'm kind of curious. Has CAP potentially redirected liability for mistreatment of cadets onto otherwise innocent members?

[peter rabbit]

There is still a portion of the membership that believes we are the military, and that what most people would consider hazing is permissible at encampment. A link to an article was recently posted online in Headline News of Volunteer Now: http://www.polkio.com/ns/news/22114/encampment-tests-cadets. Encampment doesn't have to be easy, but does it serve a purpose to reduce "a few of the cadets in her flight to tears" ? The current CPPT policy encourages/demands that members have the courage to move us away from that kind of culture towards a more professional environment - not coddling, but professional. The best teacher I remember from high school was one that was tough, who challenged us, who earned our respect but never screamed at us or demeaned us. And that was in the 60's before political correctness started cutting the legs of support for teachers.

If the OP has facts of current CPPT violations, has reported them to his commander, wing commander, and wing IG; and hasn't received a written response whether an investigation will be opened or not - please PM me.

[EMT-83]

Lt. Col. Lee,

Because the CPP places a large emphasis on observation and reporting by individual members, does this policy open the membership to potential litigation for failing to act in what someone deems to be a "timely" manner? What about if the court rules that a "reasonable person" would have directly intervened instead of just reporting it - does that open individual members to civil liability as well?

I know I'm kind of speaking in hypotheticals here, but it's just something that popped into my head and I'm kind of curious. Has CAP potentially redirected liability for mistreatment of cadets onto otherwise innocent members?

I think you're making CPPT much harder than it is.

If you suspect a violation of CAP policies, report it to CAP. If you suspect a criminal offense, call the police as well.

I brief our seniors on CPPT annually, and make these points very clear. They get it.

[FW]

But when we wrote it, protecting our cadets was indeed our focus.  When the NB voted to enact the regulations and policies it may well be that one or more of the wing commanders felt that reducing exposure was more important than protecting cadets when they cast their vote.  Only the voters can tell you why they voted as they did.  But again, since the same exact policies drafted to protect cadets also reduce corporate exposure, their votes are one of those "tastes great, less filling" debates.

I am not a CAP legal officer nor a corporate officer.  As a BoG member, I do have a duty to protect the corporation (including correcting wrongdoing by CAP members), but that is relatively recent.  But for over 35 years before being elected to the BoG, I served as a CP officer.  Where I have had a duty first and foremost to protect our cadets from harm.

And your assertions - based on second-hand and incorrect information - are simply wrong, selectively self-serving to promote your narrow vision of CAP, and are disrespectful of the volunteers who form the backbone of this organization.

And always easily done "anonymously" on the internet.

+1

The need to bring a CPP program into CAP was based on a couple of high profile cases in the late 80's and early 90's; both in and out of CAP.  I had to deal with one case in CAP (the offender is stll in prison).  While reducing the risk to the corporation was made; Ned is quite correct in stating the primary purpose was to protect our cadets.  It is cynical to think anything else. 

[Eclipse]

Lt. Col. Lee,

Because the CPP places a large emphasis on observation and reporting by individual members, does this policy open the membership to potential litigation for failing to act in what someone deems to be a "timely" manner? What about if the court rules that a "reasonable person" would have directly intervened instead of just reporting it - does that open individual members to civil liability as well?

What do you mean by "intervene"? As leaders in CAP we are duty-bound to make anything "bad" stop immediately, including calling the police immediately if it won't stop or is beyond out ability to stop it.

Hazing, at least in the sense of the word most of us will ever have to deal with, or encampments with commanders and PAO's who clearly don't "get it", are not generally a crime, so internal reporting, etc., is all that is necessary and expected - (But it still should be reported!  I'd rather a complaint about non-hazing be made, vetted, and rebutted so that everyone involved knows it "wasn't", then have people wandering around making the accusations which are never formally investigated - BTDT both ways).

Legit abuse, in any form, needs to be dealt with swiftly and immediately, at least in as much as making it stop - in the same way that any leader with
sense would contact the police if they found a gun on a member, illegal substances, or similar.

To JY's rhetoric:
The rules protect everyone, that's the point.  Making an accusation that rules which protect the corporation or it's leaders are somehow "bad", means you don't understand that without those protections, there is no organization, in which case the whole conversation is irrelevant.

[Ned]

Lt. Col. Lee,

Because the CPP places a large emphasis on observation and reporting by individual members, does this policy open the membership to potential litigation for failing to act in what someone deems to be a "timely" manner?

I'm not entirely sure what you are asking here.  If you (or any CAP member) sees a situation in which a cadet is being harmed - or may come to serious harm - you need to intervene first and report later as required by our regulations.

Our duty as adult members of CAP requires nothing less than immediate action to prevent a serious harm.

What about if the court rules that a "reasonable person" would have directly intervened instead of just reporting it - does that open individual members to civil liability as well?

Well, I know something about how courts come to their rulings, and if you had a

1.  duty to supervise one or more young people, and
2.  saw a situation in which one of your charges was being harmed or endangered, and
3.  failed to safely intervene to stop or minimize the harm,

why shouldn't you be at least partly responsible for what happens?

Isn't that the whole point of having senior members supervising cadets?  To use their training and common sense to recognize harmful situations and take action when necessary to stop it?

I just don't see liability as a practical problem here.  I literally cannot imagine a senior that would not take reasonable precautions to take care of the troops, and intervene when necessary.  Seniors tell cadets to get in out of the rain, put on sunscreen, and to cease acting disprespectfully to each other.

Although much rarer, I have seen seniors step in to prevent a fight after a heated volleyball game, tell strangers to leave the squadron area, and yes, report improper behavior by other seniors directed at cadets.

This is not rocket science or subtle legal loopholes.  It is just seniors using their common sense and guided by our regulations.

[Cool Mace]

This is not rocket science or subtle legal loopholes.  It is just seniors using their common sense and guided by our regulations.

Common sense, I have found is not that common. It should really be called uncommon sense.

+1 Ned!(yet again).

[CAPAviator]

Reading makes me question some things. OP states that he was told these events happened from the source.  OP states that a child has nightmares about said events and another has panic attacks.  Have these ailments been diagnosed by the proper professionals?  The squadron CC says they are experiencing Stockholm Syndrome ( and FYI that can go against said captors as well), is he a psychiatrist or a psychologist?  If things and I say if things were as hostile as alleged and this is coming from my count two cadets.  And given one allegation why was it not reported to the local pd?  There is more to this than what is being told.   

The CC is gone, his assistant is gone. Although no action was taken by CAP. There were 5 cadets that came forward. It's likely over now but the sad part is the coverup. What a sad organization the CAP is for ignoring these issues. FYI, Merle Starr, CAP IG asked for a formal complaint yet took no apparent action. It's a sad day for these victims.

And one last thing, the Squadron Commander used the term Stolkholm Syndrome to describe these cadets, he is a Police Officer, a lifetime CAP member and he ignored the complaints from the very cadets that explained to him that they were being hazed. 

Change can only come from the efforts of those who care for more than themselves, therefore change will never come in CAP. :-(

[peter rabbit]

I'm having a hard time believing the OP. Wish we had more documented information.

[CAPAviator]

I'm having a hard time believing the OP. Wish we had more documented information.

It's a moot topic at this point. The cadet commander and his assistant have left the unit. I suppose the reasons don't matter. Hopefully a lesson can be learned from what has happened.

[Extremepredjudice]

Reading makes me question some things. OP states that he was told these events happened from the source.  OP states that a child has nightmares about said events and another has panic attacks.  Have these ailments been diagnosed by the proper professionals?  The squadron CC says they are experiencing Stockholm Syndrome ( and FYI that can go against said captors as well), is he a psychiatrist or a psychologist?  If things and I say if things were as hostile as alleged and this is coming from my count two cadets.  And given one allegation why was it not reported to the local pd?  There is more to this than what is being told.   

The CC is gone, his assistant is gone. Although no action was taken by CAP. There were 5 cadets that came forward. It's likely over now but the sad part is the coverup. What a sad organization the CAP is for ignoring these issues. FYI, Merle Starr, CAP IG asked for a formal complaint yet took no apparent action. It's a sad day for these victims.

And one last thing, the Squadron Commander used the term Stolkholm Syndrome to describe these cadets, he is a Police Officer, a lifetime CAP member and he ignored the complaints from the very cadets that explained to him that they were being hazed. 

Change can only come from the efforts of those who care for more than themselves, therefore change will never come in CAP. :-(

The fact the squadron commander was a police officer doesn't qualify him to diagnose people. Especially since there aren't very many kidnappings, so he would have one experience with SS, if any.

[Eclipse]

If they left the unit, but are still active members, then in many ways the issue is potentially far from closed.

However as we've pointed out many times, there is really no way to discuss these matters in enough detail to be able to have
any sort of satisfying discussion.  There are always shades of perception and personal filter on these things, which is why the IG's
are supposed to get involved.

The initial assertions of "years of hazing", to me, made the scenario suspect because legit hazing rarely lasts beyond a few incidents -
people complain, quit, or both.

Certainly no parent with common sense or any level of involvement with their kids would allow them to remain in a program that was giving
them nightmares.

[Extremepredjudice]

Certainly no parent with common sense or any level of involvement with their kids would allow them to remain in a program that was giving them nightmares

Sir, the world has lots of people who don't have sense.

[abdsp51]

+1 police cannot legally diagnose SS.  I still think there is more here than what is being told and sounds like a disgruntled member or former member.